IMPORTANT POINT
The violation of a statutory provision alone would not establish negligence causing the accident, and the burden of proving the breach of policy rests on the insurer. Future prospects should be included in compensation for permanent disability.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.

1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment and award dated 17.10.2017 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Shorapur (Tribunal for short) in MVC No. 211/2016, MVC No. 212/2016 and MVC No. 213/2016.

2. MFA No. 200184/2018, MFA No. 200186/2018 and MFA No. 200187/2018 are preferred by the Insurance company.

3. MFA No. 202001/2018 is preferred by the claimant/injured in MVC No. 213/2016. MFA CROB No. 200068/2018 and MFA CROB No. 200069/2018 are preferred by the respective claimants in MVC No. 211/2016 and MVC No. 212/2016.

4. Heard and perused the trial Court records.

5. In a road traffic accident, which took place on 13.02.2015 at about 8.40 p.m. near the land of R.L. Nayak on Lingasugur-Shorapur main road, involving a tempo trax jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-33/M-2458 and a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-33-J-3820, two persons namely Anusuya and Maremma died and one Mallanna sustained grievous injuries. The legal heirs of deceased Anusuya preferred MVC No. 211/2016, legal heirs of deceased Mariyamma preferred MVC No. 212/2016 and the injured Mallanna preferred MVC No. 213/2016, claiming compensation before the Tribunal. The said claim petitions were resisted by the insurer of the offending vehicle namely, tempo trax jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-33/M-2458, on the ground that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-33-J-3820 himself was negligent in causing the accident as there were three persons traveling in the said motorcycle and further that both the drivers of the vehicles were not possessing a valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

6. The Tribunal framed the following points:

1. Whether petitioners of all the cases prove that, the accident on 13.02.2015 at about 8.40 PM occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of tempo trax No. KA- 33/M-2458 due to which the deceased Anusuya and Maremma of MVC Nos.211/2016 & 213/2016 died due to accidental injuries and petitioner of MVC No. 213/2016 sustained grievous injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that, the driver of tempo trax No. KA-33-M-2458 and rider of motor cycle No. KA-33-J-3820 did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence on the date of accident?

3. Whether the petitioners of all the cases are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

4. What order or award?

7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and answering the above points, the Tribunal was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs. 10,49,000/- to the claimants in MVC No. 211/2016, Rs. 7,83,000/- to the claimants in MVC No. 212/2016 and Rs. 14,62,000/- to the claimant in MVC No. 213/2016, with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization. The insurer of the offending vehicle namely tempo trax jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-33/M-2458 was held liable to pay the compensation.

8. As per the claimants, injured Mallanna was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KA-33-J-3820 at the time of accident and the two deceased were the pillion riders. Hence, it is not in dispute that three persons were traveling in the motorcycle at the time of accident. It is the contention raised by the insurance company that admittedly three persons were on the motorcycle and therefore, the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent in causing the accident. It is contended that there is violation of policy conditions and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

9. Admittedly, the FIR and charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tempo trax jeep bearing Reg. No. KA-33/M-2458. The claimants have got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 namely the certified copy of the FIR, Charge sheet and the spot panchanama. There is no case registered against the rider of the motorcycle for causing the accident. Based on the documentary evidence, supported by the oral evidence of PW1 examined by the claimants in the respective cases, the Tribunal has held that no worthwhile evidence has been elicited duri